Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[francisdesales]

So in your world "necessary" doesn't mean absolutely essential

Perhaps. Depends upon the context. The English language is like that....

But that's besides the point - another red herring, explained by my post that cites the Catechism and destroys your argument ... This fixation is clearly a realization that you have no answer.

"everything" doesn't mean all things,

Of course not, considering the context. Who would suggest that they do not believe that they exist? That is just childish semantics attempting to take everyone's eye off the fact that you were again made to look silly.

and when you respond directly to a persons comment toward you with "name calling" you aren't talking about name calling.

A bit of reading a one sentence post might clear things up for you. I never said you called me personally a name. I said that your post consisted of name calling and had nothing worthy of content. Your post was just polemic gibberish, and I called you out.

Too much for you?

Um..yeah.

I can see that you are more interested in arguing than actually presenting anything worthy of what someone MIGHT call a religious point...

 

[warfrog]

Perhaps. Depends upon the context. The English language is like that....

But that's besides the point - another red herring, explained by my post that cites the Catechism and destroys your argument ... This fixation is clearly a realization that you have no answer.



Of course not, considering the context. Who would suggest that they do not believe that they exist? That is just childish semantics attempting to take everyone's eye off the fact that you were again made to look silly.



A bit of reading a one sentence post might clear things up for you. I never said you called me personally a name. I said that your post consisted of name calling and had nothing worthy of content. Your post was just polemic gibberish, and I called you out.

Too much for you?

Um..yeah.

I can see that you are more interested in arguing than actually presenting anything worthy of what someone MIGHT call a religious point...

And this is the way you would handle it if someone was in fact doing so?
By throwing more fuel on the fire instead of trying to dissolve the dispute?

If you dont know what im talking about re-read your post a few times, your clearly holding your chin up to heaven in ignorance and im not telling you this to put you down, but indeed if you ever see me do the same in truth, please do the same for me and point it out brother, that goes for anyone who reads this.

how about one of you make the first move to kiss and make-up as we should be doing.

Also for the sake of the topic, i was raised in a catholic family, i believe i was baptized as a baby, but i do not personally recall, nor do i care, I have not been baptized in water since the Lord revealed Himself to me and i am not involved with the catholic church and havent been for a long time, as a child i never cared for it and was a persecuter of everything God before the Lord was revealed, but the Helper is with me through the grace of God and the salvation of Christ, therefore i cannot say baptism is required or baptism isnt required because of those circumstances, but if it was a cause to make a brethren to stumble that i have not been baptised in water, i would certianly remove that stumbling block and God permitting if it was possible, i would let that brethren do it.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[RoadDebris]

Perhaps. Depends upon the context. The English language is like that....

In your world it evidently does, but here on Planet Reality absolute terms have absolute meaning. Squares can not be round, no matter how such a thing might be explained. Ditto for "necessity" and "everything." That you've adopted a tone-deafness toward contradiction says a lot about the theology you've chosen to accept.

But that's besides the point - another red herring, explained by my post that cites the Catechism and destroys your argument ... This fixation is clearly a realization that you have no answer.

There are no answers to self-defeating assertions, other than to point out their irrational nature. Something can not be necessary and non-essential at the same time in the same place (Law of Contradiction), no matter how such a contradictory view is explained.

Of course not, considering the context.

There is no context in which the Law of Contradiction can be violated. It's universal. That you are forced to justify your theology by "explaining" away violations of this absolute law says it all about what you choose to believe. Willfully irrational.

Who would suggest that they do not believe that they exist? That is just childish semantics attempting to take everyone's eye off the fact that you were again made to look silly.

Pointing to the Law of Contradiction may seem silly to you, but rational people understand that this law is inviolable. All of us exaggerative sometimes, using the word "everything" when we don't actually mean all things. But reasonable people acknowledge the hyperbolic nature of their statements when it's pointed out to them. That you refuse to do so says a lot about your obstinate dedication to false truth claims.

Since all rational people know they exist, to claim there is some doubt in all knowledge and that God leaves us in this state of uncertainty is proven to be false.

A bit of reading a one sentence post might clear things up for you. I never said you called me personally a name. I said that your post consisted of name calling and had nothing worthy of content. Your post was just polemic gibberish, and I called you out.

Speaking of which: ok then, who was this "name calling" directed at then? Please be specific, if you able.

I can see that you are more interested in arguing than actually presenting anything worthy of what someone MIGHT call a religious point...

That might make you feel better about the irrational things you believe in, but it's not in line with the actual state of affairs. Pointing out the absurdity of self-defeating ideas is a legitimate function of argumentation. But, perhaps that's too much for you?

 

[francisdesales]

In your world it evidently does, but here on Planet Reality absolute terms have absolute meaning.

I looked at your entire post, I'll just say that it is full of red herrings. No absolute terms have been discussed by me, so your entire conversation is not worth arguing about. I posted the Catechism's explanation, but you are not interested in reading that, but merely arguing for the sake of arguing about something I am not even discussing... The world is not "black and white" and English language has meaning depending upon the context:

Thus, if I write "I MUST have that watch". Is that an absolute necessity? Is this akin to the need to breathe air? Of course not, and you know this, but you choose to argue for the sake of arguing with your red herrings of:

Laws of Contradictions...
Absolute meanings...
Self-defeating assertions...

I don't see how this as a worthwhile counter to my Catechism post, but rather, an attempt to save face when you know you are wrong by changing the subject with your "absolutes", so is there any reason to continue? Your approach to this cannot possibly build up the Body, so I must end this.

Good bye and God bless...

 

[RoadDebris]

I looked at your entire post, I'll just say that it is full of red herrings.

Evidently "red herring" is your standard defense when someone points out the absurdity of one of your contradictory views. That sort of rhetorical response might make you feel better about the things you choose to believe, but it's woefully lame nonetheless.

No absolute terms have been discussed by me, so your entire conversation is not worth arguing about.

Intellectually disingenuous. Necessary is an absolute term. Ditto for everything.

I posted the Catechism's explanation, but you are not interested in reading that, but merely arguing for the sake of arguing about something I am not even discussing... The world is not "black and white" and English language has meaning depending upon the context:

News flash: just because someone doesn't agree with your post doesn't mean they haven't read it. It's pretty arrogant to assume that all of your responses are so compelling that all people are immediately converted to your point of view as soon as they read them and that those who are not so converted have obviously not read them. Keep it real.

On "black and white": there you go again, to quote Ronaldus Magnus. That's an absolute statement. If the world is not black and white then the statement "The world is not black and white" can not be true. And if there's an exception to it it's not true. That this simple adherence to the Law of Contradiction is apparently above you says it all about the irrational things you choose to believe and exposes the invalid truth claims you make here.

Thus, if I write "I MUST have that watch". Is that an absolute necessity?

Obviously it would be a hyperbolic claim. If you made such a statement and then denied using any exaggeration then the intellectual dishonesty of your statement would be apparent.

Laws of Contradictions...
Absolute meanings...
Self-defeating assertions...

I don't see how this as a worthwhile counter to my Catechism post, but rather, an attempt to save face when you know you are wrong by changing the subject with your "absolutes", so is there any reason to continue?

Yes, that's obvious. You have no regard for basic logic and that willful ignorance is necessary for your continued adherence to Catholicism. When confronted with the facts, any Catholic who wishes to remain loyal to his religion over reality must plug his ears and run away. Sad.

 

[francisdesales]

Evidently "red herring" is your standard defense when someone points out the absurdity of one of your contradictory views. That sort of rhetorical response might make you feel better about the things you choose to believe, but it's woefully lame nonetheless.

Too bad. Nothing worthy of responding to regarding my post on the necessity to baptize as noted in the Catholic Catechism. You continue to fulfill the definition of 'red herring' and don't even realize it with your unfortunate anger-filled posts...

Adios...

 

[RoadDebris]

Too bad. Nothing worthy of responding to regarding my post on the necessity to baptize as noted in the Catholic Catechism. You continue to fulfill the definition of 'red herring' and don't even realize it with your unfortunate anger-filled posts...

Adios...

It may well be distracting to you when someone points out the illogical fallacies you assert, but that doesn't make their response a red herring. It's obvious that you are not used to having your views held to a logical standard, and while that's unfortunate and everything, that doesn't mean you should be coddled to the point of allowing your irrational statements to go unanswered. Additionally, while it might make you feel better about the absurd things you believe to accuse those who strongly disagree with you of being filled with anger, that is just a cop-out based on emotionalism. Ironically, it's a red herring. Hypocrisy.

 

[dadof10]

It may well be distracting to you when someone points out the illogical fallacies you assert, but that doesn't make their response a red herring. It's obvious that you are not used to having your views held to a logical standard, and while that's unfortunate and everything, that doesn't mean you should be coddled to the point of allowing your irrational statements to go unanswered. Additionally, while it might make you feel better about the absurd things you believe to accuse those who strongly disagree with you of being filled with anger, that is just a cop-out based on emotionalism. Ironically, it's a red herring. Hypocrisy.

Paul said "all have sinned". Certainly there are exceptions, like kids under the age of reason. He also quoted the OT "there is none who seeks after good, not even one". Certainly Paul himself "seeks after good". If not, I'm sure he knew of ONE person who did. These Biblical examples can be multiplied. I'm sure you get the point.

Maybe we should dump all his letters due to his lack of logic?

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[francisdesales]

It may well be distracting to you when someone points out the illogical fallacies you assert, but that doesn't make their response a red herring. It's obvious that you are not used to having your views held to a logical standard, and while that's unfortunate and everything, that doesn't mean you should be coddled to the point of allowing your irrational statements to go unanswered. Additionally, while it might make you feel better about the absurd things you believe to accuse those who strongly disagree with you of being filled with anger, that is just a cop-out based on emotionalism. Ironically, it's a red herring. Hypocrisy.

More of the same name callling and no answer whatsoever to post #219 made on April 28th. All I have gotten from you so far is the usual bluster and bravado. I have called for you over and over to address that post, but you refuse.

Everything is explained there, but you prefer to continue with your false accusations. You prefer to take peoples' mind off your inability to answer that post, and rather attempt to poison the well with your red herrings and false accusations.

I am not interested in trolls attempting to start a flame war with me. I have grown up beyond that stage of life. But maybe the Mods might be introduced to your abusive language.